These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search


616 related items for PubMed ID: 20228981

  • 1. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 6-month follow-up.
    Coelho-de-Souza FH, Klein-Júnior CA, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Demarco FF.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 Mar 01; 11(2):001-8. PubMed ID: 20228981
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. One year clinical evaluation of two different types of composite resins in posterior teeth.
    Gianordoli Neto R, Santiago SL, Mendonça JS, Passos VF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2008 May 01; 9(4):26-33. PubMed ID: 18473024
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable composite restorations.
    Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S.
    Oper Dent; 2009 May 01; 34(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 19192832
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. A randomized double-blind clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with or without bevel: 1-year follow-up.
    Coelho-De-Souza FH, Camargo JC, Beskow T, Balestrin MD, Klein-Júnior CA, Demarco FF.
    J Appl Oral Sci; 2012 May 01; 20(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 22666833
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results.
    Mendonça JS, Neto RG, Santiago SL, Lauris JR, Navarro MF, de Carvalho RM.
    J Contemp Dent Pract; 2010 May 01; 11(3):025-32. PubMed ID: 20461321
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Class II composite restorations with metallic and translucent matrices: 2-year follow-up findings.
    Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Lima FG, Donassollo TA, André Dde A, Leida FL.
    J Dent; 2007 Mar 01; 35(3):231-7. PubMed ID: 17034926
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Three-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance and wear of a nanocomposite versus a hybrid composite.
    Palaniappan S, Bharadwaj D, Mattar DL, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P.
    Dent Mater; 2009 Nov 01; 25(11):1302-14. PubMed ID: 19577288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Repair of dimethacrylate-based composite restorations by a silorane-based composite: a one-year randomized clinical trial.
    Popoff DA, Santa Rosa TT, Ferreira RC, Magalhães CS, Moreira AN, Mjör IA.
    Oper Dent; 2012 Nov 01; 37(5):E1-10. PubMed ID: 22616930
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results.
    Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC.
    J Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 38(6):451-9. PubMed ID: 20188783
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: two-year results.
    Arhun N, Celik C, Yamanel K.
    Oper Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 35(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 20672723
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
    Sadeghi M, Lynch CD, Shahamat N.
    J Oral Rehabil; 2010 Jul 01; 37(7):532-7. PubMed ID: 20202097
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Durability of resin composite restorations in high C-factor cavities: a 12-year follow-up.
    van Dijken JW.
    J Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 38(6):469-74. PubMed ID: 20193727
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations.
    Lange RT, Pfeiffer P.
    Oper Dent; 2009 Jun 01; 34(3):263-72. PubMed ID: 19544814
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results.
    Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni CH, Ciaramicoli MT, Kiyan VH, Queiroz CS.
    Oper Dent; 2012 Jun 01; 37(1):3-11. PubMed ID: 21942235
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Efficacy of composites filled with nanoparticles in permanent molars: Six-month results.
    Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA.
    Gen Dent; 2010 Jun 01; 58(5):e190-5. PubMed ID: 20829151
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. A clinical evaluation of packable and microhybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report.
    de Souza FB, Guimarães RP, Silva CH.
    Quintessence Int; 2005 Jan 01; 36(1):41-8. PubMed ID: 15709496
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth.
    Swanson TK, Feigal RJ, Tantbirojn D, Hodges JS.
    Pediatr Dent; 2008 Jan 01; 30(2):134-40. PubMed ID: 18481578
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Clinical evaluation of polyacid-modified resin composite posterior restorations: one-year results.
    Luo Y, Lo EC, Fang DT, Wei SH.
    Quintessence Int; 2000 Oct 01; 31(9):630-6. PubMed ID: 11203987
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite.
    de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medeiros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML, Montes MA.
    J Dent; 2011 Jan 01; 39(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 20888884
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Clinical comparison of bur- and laser-prepared minimally invasive occlusal resin composite restorations: two-year follow-up.
    Yazici AR, Baseren M, Gorucu J.
    Oper Dent; 2010 Jan 01; 35(5):500-7. PubMed ID: 20945740
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]


    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 31.